|
Skepticism.Net |
|
|
Does Global Warming Necessarily Mean More Disease?
Thursday, April 12, 2001 A much hyped claim about global warming -- that it will lead to an increase in infectious disease -- is simply not true. Or more precisely, there is a decided lack of evidence to demonstrate the hypothesis according to a recent National Academy of Sciences report. Donald Burke, professor of international health for John Hopkins School of Public Health, headed the panel and said that, "The potential exists for scientists one day to be able to predict the impact of global climate change on disease, but that day is not yet here." Climate conditions do certainly play a role in how diseases are distributed, but today housing conditions, vaccination, and sanitation systems play an enormous role in the spread of disease. As many commentators have noted, malaria was an enormous problem in North America well into the 20th century. The disease was eradicated in the United States and Canada thanks to a large public health intervention to rid the continent of the disease. Climate change could cause some changes in infectious diseases, but it is more likely that socioeconomic factors would play the key role in the spread, or lack thereof, of disease. Source: GLobal warming, disease spread link uncertain-panel. Reuters, April 2, 2001. Discuss (8 Replies) | Printer Friendly |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
© Copyright 1998-2002 by Brian Carnell. All rights reserved |